801 Burnley Road, Rawtenstall

ITEM NO. B4 Application 2016/0474 Application Full Number: Type: Proposal: Change of use from Location: 801 Burnley Road motorcycle store to Rawtenstall convenience store (A1) Report of: Planning Unit Manager Status: For publication Report to: Development Control Date: 13th December 2016 Committee Applicant: Mr Shabaz Ahmed Determination 16th December 2016 Expiry Date: Agent: Mr Shams-Ul Alam Contact Officer: Neil Birtles Telephone: 01706-238645 Email: [email protected] REASON FOR REPORTING Outside Officer Scheme of Delegation Member Call-In Name of Member: Cllr A Barnes Reason for Call-In: I am concerned about siting an off license at this point in the road. The area has many double yellow lines - for good reason - and I am concerned that people in a hurry will disregard these and park anyway. 3 or more objections received Other (please state): HUMAN RIGHTS The relevant provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights have been taken into account in the preparation of this report, particularly the implications arising from the following rights:- Article 8 The right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. Article 1 of Protocol 1 The right of peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property. 1. RECOMMENDATION That Permission be refused for the reasons set out in Section 9. Version Number: 1 Page: 1 of 8 2. SITE This application relates to a 2-storey building situated on the corner of Burnley Road (A682) and Goodshaw Avenue. The premises have been used for many years for the display and sale of motorbikes, though now vacant. The building is of stone/slate construction and has a shopfront/fascia sign that extends the length of the front elevation and part way down the northern gable. It has a floor area of 223sqm, the ground floor 25sqm larger than the first-floor by reason of the 1-storey addition occupying half of the rear yard. The rest of the properties in the terrace are in residential use, as too are the properties to the other side of Goodshaw Avenue and beyond the private road running to the rear of the terrace. To the opposite side of the main road is the former Jester public house, now converted to a funeral directors. Double yellow lines extend to the front and side of the terrace the application building forms part of and also to the front and side of the terrace to the opposite side of Goodshaw Avenue. The application building and those in the vicinity are located within the Urban Boundary. 3. PROPOSAL The application seeks permission to change the use of the building to an A1 retail unit, the submitted drawings indicating that the ground floor is to be used for the display and sale of convenience goods, except for the 1-storey addition to the rear which is to be retained as a store room. The first-floor is to be used for further ancillary storage, an office and staff facilities. No external alterations to the building are proposed. The Application Form indicates hours of opening for the shop are to be 8am to 11-30pm on 7 days of the week. The Agent has since advised that it is intended to open 7am to 10pm each day. In favour of the proposal, the Agent has stated that the proposal : - will bring back into use a vacant building in a prominent location - is for change of use to a convenience store, where only small items of daily needs and necessities will be stocked; & - is to serve the nearby residents, who will travel to the premises mainly on foot. In response to concerns expressed by LCC Highways about on-street parking/servicing that the convenience store may give rise to the Agent has : advised that “the client has another small shop which he services throughout the week using a small van. This avoids the employment of a large vehicle which will clearly not work in this instance” submitted an amended Plan to show that : - the ‘small van’ they envisage making deliveries is of a size it will be able to back into the rear alley and goods then taken into the building via their back yard; - they are willing to provide a guard rail at the kerbside of Burnley Road fronting their building to help discourage customers parking here; and - verbal agreement has been reached with the funeral directors opposite to enable store customers to park on the forecourt fronting their building. Version Number: 1 Page: 2 of 8 4. PLANNING HISTORY None. 5. POLICY CONTEXT National National Planning Policy Framework Section 1 Building a strong, competitive economy Section 2 Ensuring the vitality of town centres Section 4 Promoting Sustainable Transport Section 7 Requiring Good Design Development Plan Policies Rossendale Core Strategy DPD (2011) Policy AVP4 Area Vision for Rawtenstall, Crawshawbooth, Goodshaw & Loveclough Policy 1 General Development Locations and Principles Policy 8 Transport Policy 9 Accessibility Policy 11 Retail & Other Town Centre Uses Policy 13 Protecting Key Local Retail & Other Services Policy 24 Planning Application Requirements 6. CONSULTATION RESPONSES RBC Environmental Health No comments LCC Highways In response to the application as first submitted the Highway Authority advised that it had highway safety concerns relating to the lack of customer parking and servicing area for the unloading of goods. It has considered the amended Plan since submitted by the Agent and has stated : “The amended plan that has been submitted does not address the concerns that were originally raised by the Highway Authority.” Its views are more fully set out in the Assessment below. 7. NOTIFICATION RESPONSES To accord with the General Development Procedure Order the application was publicised by site notice and letters to neighbours. A total of 64 people (from 40 properties) have put their name to the same letter, which objects to the application for the following reasons : The character of the area will be spoiled, the intended hours of opening anti-social and adversely affecting aural amenity The business is inappropriate, especially given the near proximity of a convenience store 300m to the south The internal layout is inappropriate as it places fridges/freezers adjoining the neighbouring residential property and the till visible from the street. More stationary / moving traffic will be generated in an already busy residential area / where there is a variation in traffic speeds / where double yellow lines have been provided because of existing highway dangers Version Number: 1 Page: 3 of 8 Limey Valley Residents Association has commented that : The planning application makes no mention of the License to sell alcohol that has been sought and raises the potential for public nuisance and touches also upon the safety and welfare of children and road safety. The association has some sympathy with residents’ concerns. By the same token it appreciates that it is desirable to have such a large premises occupied. Given that a generation ago, the building housed a Co-op convenience store, it can see the logic of this sort of operation opening up once again. What it cannot support is the provision of yet another outlet for the sale of alcohol given the property 250m to the south and, a further few minutes’ walk away, 2 convenience stores in Crawshawbooth. 8. ASSESSMENT The main considerations of the application are : 1) Principle; 2) Traffic/Parking; & 3) Neighbour Amenity Principle The application site is situated within the Urban Boundary and fronts a main road along which a bus service runs. To this extent the site is in a sustainable location. However, National and Core Strategy attach great importance to ensuring the vitality of town and other centres. In this instance the nearest such centre is Crawshawbooth, identified by the Core Strategy as a Neighbourhood Centre. In Section 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework, entitled ‘Ensuring the vitality of town centres’, it is stated that : “Local planning authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan. They should require applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres, then in edge of centre locations and only if suitable sites are not available should out of centre sites be considered. When considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre. Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale. (Para 24) When assessing applications for retail, leisure and office development outside of town centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, local planning authorities should require an impact assessment if the development is over a proportionate, locally set floorspace threshold (if there is no locally set threshold, the default threshold is 2,500 sq m).This should include assessment of: the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five years from the time the application is made. For major schemes where the full impact will not be realised in five years, the impact should also be assessed up to ten years from the time the application is made. (Para 26) Where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impact on one or more of the above factors, it should be Version Number: 1 Page: 4 of 8 refused.” (Para 27) Policy 11 of the Core Strategy, entitled ‘Retail and Other Town Centre Uses’, states (amongst other things) that : “Retail development, together with other town centre uses, including offices, leisure, arts, culture and tourist facilities, will be focused within the defined town and local centres.

Load more